anonym

cont: (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b)of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Perhaps you should have read the entire law. It does not give the President War Powers.

Tell me this what did the Libyan civil war have to do with the terrorist attacks on 9/11? Or now that President Obama has declared the war on terror over. Why is he still bombing Pakistan?

anonym

cont: Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

anonym

Veritas: If you are referring to Public Law 107–40 passed by the 107th Congress in the wake of 9/11/2001.

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

anonym

My concern is not with the President’s ability to issue an Executive Order. George Washington issued the first Executive Order in 1789 & did so because Congress was out of session.

My concern is with the content of the of President Obama’s Executive Orders that overstep the checks and balances system and the intent of the Executive Order. He overrode Congress with an EO, when he could not get the Dream Act passed, which allows Illegal immigrants the same rights as legal immigrants, because they were brought to the US as children illegally by their parents. Or, not requesting Congress approval for military action, then taking such action by executive order and EO, but not reporting it to Congress. Perhaps you do not have a problem with the President overstepping his Executive Powers, but I do.

anonym

The intention of our checks and balances system is to keep one branch of government from getting too powerful. When a President signs Executive orders that do not pertain to the Executive Branch, to override Congress by essentially passing his own laws; that is a clear violation of the checks and balance system. Such as President Obama signing executive order Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, when the Dream Act couldn’t pass in Congress. The Constitution clearly states this would be a Powers of Congress. Or, sidestepping Congress to send military planes to bomb Libya and Pakistan, without consulting Congress. This was further clarified in 1973, with the War Powers Resolution. Which states The President must consult Congress before the start of hostilities, and report regularly on the deployment. The President cannot declare war or make laws this is the role of the Legislature.

It seems someone was not paying attention when he was teaching Constitutional Law.

namexxx

centerfield

You cannot have checks and balances when one of the political parties is obstructing any part of the political process. The almost four hundred filibusters of the Senate and the total inadequacy of the House does nothing to further our governing process. The house has passed NOTHING in years and is expected to only be working 33% of the time this year. The 37 votes on Obamacare show the complete distain of the Republican Party to participate in our democracy. Also, the judicial section has Supreme court justices deciding cases based on political views and members accepting gratuities from groups and individuals with potential cases that might come before them. So, there is no checks and balances.

EarlyBird

FrankG

Unfortunately we have a weak and gutless congress that vote according to their party's leaders wishes rather than according to the wishes of their constituents (We, the people). The result is that the president, the supreme court, and government agencies are free to exercise powers not given to them in the constitution.

rajiihammr

Has there been a secret coup lately that would make the "No" responders answer as they do? And the election of Barack Hussein Obama does not qualify as a legitimate answer, even though in their minds it does.